I don’t think Dutton’s nuclear policy stacks up, but it’s also a great pity that it’s been made a partisan political issue - by him, mind you. But I think nuclear energy research should be on the table as part of a possible solution, instead of it being a Labor v Liberal matter.

It's not deceptive. Huge Increases in carbon emissions happen because of rapid economic growth. Income and prosperity hasn't at all so much in the West as it has in China. Let's remember that in the start of the 1990's China's GDP was equivalent to or even smaller than the Netherlands.

You can literally see the reasons:
Then:

Now:

As I said, what it shows is that China and India are undergoing rapid development.

I'd be happy for nuclear energy to be on the table. I do not think it anywhere near viable.

What is amusing, and prompted this thread, is that the erstwhile liberal, small government, market driven economy party are proposing to build them at taxpayer expense rather than leave it to corporations to decide if it makes economic sense.

And to proved cash to the operators of gas power stations rather than to give it to consumers, thus biasing the market.

Agree. Dutton is wholly driven by talkback radio politics rather than principle.

Is talkback still influential? I find that hard to credit.

Liberal decisions were once made on the basis of neoliberal ideology. As the conservatives took control, policy became more about building inequality into the distribution of wealth. Now it seems to be simply about doing the opposite of whatever the ALP policy is.

It used to be that the ALP appeared to have more basic integrity than the Liberals. Now it's more like that the Liberals have just given up on any rational approach to problem solving, in favour of simply being contrary.

Fair. By talkback, I meant populism rather than principle, although that doesn’t fit either as the nuclear policy isn’t that popular. I can’t stand Dutton, I’ve never believed he could be PM, but then I thought the same of Albanese in the past, so who knows?

When I first heard of small modular reactors, they seemed a great idea. But as we all now know, they're not ready for market yet and may not ever be. The only one being trialled outside China was mothballed a year ago.

If it were left to the market, it's pretty clear that solar would (and indeed will) be the dominant source of power in Australia. But that is contrary to a narrative built up by right-leaning pundits over the last thirty years, supporting the idea of a centralised energy grid that is controlled by corporate bodies, rejecting the science of climate change and the reality of the market. Part of the need to propose Nuclear might be a vague notion of consistency. More likely it is inertia and desperation.

True enough, but there is also need for massive distributed storage, either batteries or some other mechanism, like hydro, to supply baseload power. I'm sure that's not just corporate propaganda. Although that said, there's work underway to connect existing grid infrastructure to solar plants e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/16/climate/coal-to-solar-minnesota?cid=ios_app

That's not the view of those in the CSIRO:
Base load power: The dinosaur in the energy debate

Thanks. Worth knowing.

I'm sure that's not just corporate propaganda. — Wayfarer

The problem of base load power isn't just corporate propaganda. Look at prices in Germany.
In Finland we have prices of megawatt hour of 55 euros to a little bit over 100 euros. Germany had price spikes of +900 euros megawatt hour, when the sun isn't shining and there's no wind.

But of course, if energy prices don't matter, then I guess it's corporate propaganda. And nuclear power is one smart way to have that base load power. It doesn't have to be coal power plants.

The problem of base load power isn't just corporate propaganda. — ssu

Yeah I didn't think so, although must admit to probably needing a bit more research. I'm not against nuclear power in principle, but the practical, political, economic, and environmental barriers are enormous, particularly here in Australia.

Just don't take the idiotic road of Germany: that you simply have an administration that takes off critical base load energy production and assumes that renewables will do the issue.

So closing all the coal plants and relying purely on renewables, because the "battery problem" will be resolved in a few months, is the road to disaster. Because when those coal plants are demolished and the personnel has retired or gotten jobs somewhere else, you cannot simply backtrack the situation when you face multiple times higher energy costs and perhaps rolling blackouts. Germany doesn't have rolling blackouts because of the integrated nature of electricity production in the EU. Also note that Germany is severely losing it's competitiveness because of high energy prices. The UK is another example of high energy prices that to lousy and inefficient investment on energy production.

Take a look at table 2 in Renewable electricity policy for Australia. P.7.

Australia is a bit larger than Germany, (about 20 times the area), with correspondingly much longer grids, plural, and with different parts of those grids in very different locations. Modelling apparently suggests that "base load" can be ignored over such a scale, especially if the network is made more efficient and interconnected.

Foremost is perhaps the problem of local wiring being too thin to take the load form rooftop solar during sunny days. It will become prone to overheating and failure.

This is an issue to whcih we might return in a year or two, when the experiment has run it's course.

We could explore natural disasters, like the closing of King Island Dairy.

No more Lighthouse Blue Brie!

- Yep.

Well known knuckle-dragged spills the beans

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-20/canavan-coalition-not-serious-nuclear-keith-pitt-quits/104749828?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

Broken Hill fiasco shows why we need to rethink the grid, and turn it upside down

I noticed that. Arguably the remnants of the Australian Country Party suffer from a poor combination of honesty and ignorance. And poor judgement.

@Banno,
...suffer from a poor combination of honesty and ignorance. And poor judgement."
Sounds like that applies to all politics and adherents at some time and depending on the commentator's bias/wheelbarrow.
Not knocking it though in this case. Electorates' members reserve the right to collectively elect dinosaurs, loonies, car sales persons, academics etc. etc.
Unfortunately, there are few legal limitations to nomination to stand for political election. Maybe, it could be argued, that is a benefit of the party based governance system, the weeding out effect of pre-selection.

Can't have the peons choosing their candidates. Could get too much parochial diversity and what would that do to the culture of politics? Not to mention the coherence of the nation?

And sorry Banno, your intention of highlighting( but not exclusively) the climate "debate" particularly in regard to electrical energy production, which is currently keeping the voters' minds off other more "complex" concerns such as housing, energy usage and the dreaded "cost of living crisis", flew right past due to the wishful and hopeful thinking that you may be introducing a balance to the heavy influence of US political and educated interest/argument that shows a "slight" preponderance, possibly due the nationality statistics of forum members. Sorry, if your intentions were misunderstood. Being corrected will be taken in the good grace that keeps the civility of the forum.
It is and will be very interesting catching up with the "homegrown" political interests and interpretations of fellow citizens et al. Keeping informed about politics is a bottomless well of...

slightly more eye opened smile

It is always interesting to see how others, particularly/including Aussies, compare the Australian political parties with the US big two.
It may be suggested that any current comparison using "left" and "right" of the Reps or of the Dems is dated.
The LNP for all its "rhetoric" is still "left" of the Dems, even of the B.Sanders faction.
The LNP understands the general socialist/ social consciousness of current Aust voting and adjusts its face accordingly. Please note, "voting" not voters.
And for all its slide towards the big end of town, Labor is still "left" of the LNP in the opinions of the majority of Aust voters who are interested in such comparisons.

Does anyone agree? Or is this overly naive/ simplistic to comment upon/upon which to comment?

smile

Tania Mihailuk joins exodus from One Nation, leaving Pauline Hanson’s party without representation in NSW

How sad.

CSIRO accused of ‘pro-reality’ bias following assessment of Dutton’s nuclear ‘plan’

While

Plibersek brags that Labor hasn’t approved any fossil fuel projects for a few hours

What a difference a few hours makes Inserted into politico sound bites. Taunting,mistake/slip of the tongue, creative fact constructing, perhaps! re: T Plibersek. (Spellcheck doesn't recognize her surname yet. Wonder what that augers?)

Another issue current in Aus politics.

1/ What influences will monetary limits on future election campaigns have? If at least two people can agree that there may be influences, and what they were post election?
1a/ Should such limits be pegged to inflation ( pick your favorite named set of those figures) or cost of living ( again, pick your....) or GDP or the total of politicians' gross wages and benefits ( pick how that should/ could be calculated) or a wealth distribution equalization figure compared to GDP figures.

A suggested reply may be 1/ " as much or little influence as the election committees can manipulate to advantage". But it may make it less about throwing money at advertising to buy votes or increase "pork barrelling".
and 1a/ GDP with wealth distribution equalization qualifiers as an incentive/bonus for good economic decisions/ cooperativeness and less politicking/ point scoring ( or sheer good guessing/luck). Good governance in other words.

(Yeah, a bit Democratic Socialist in at least one interpretation of DS theory. Prefer to think of it as social requirement/preference.)

Just some "random" thoughts

faint smile

Hi.

Can non-Australians participate in this Thread and can they voice their opinion? Because I, as a non-Australian, have something controversial to say about Australian politics.

EDIT: Actually, I have quite a lot of controversial things to say about Australian politics.

Of course.

Thanks.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm from Argentina. I'll also tell everyone a silly anecdote, just to ease up the mood. So, oddly enough, there's Eucalyptus trees in the town that I live. Someone brought them from Australia ages ago. I always thought they were part of the local flora, until someone told me many years later that someone brought them from Australia ages ago. Crazy stuff.

So, years forward, I go to this philosophical Congress in another province (they're called "provinces", not "states", in Argentina). In one of the presentations that I just happened to wander into, a team of philosophers, biologists, historians and geographers were explaining that at the end of the 19th Century and the first decades of the 20th, a series of Argentine politicians wanted to turn Argentina into "the Australia of South America". Literally, mate. Now, what do I mean by "literally" in this story that I'm telling? I mean that the team in question, explained to us, the audience, how Argentina was to become "the Australia of South America". And it was a three-stage plan. Stage One: bring the Australian flora, and plant it in Argentina. It's why there's Eucalyptus tree in my hometown, and in other areas as well. The plan never got past this stage. And they didn't bring all the flora, just the Eucalyptus. But there were two more stages to this plan. Stage two would have been to bring over the Australian fauna. Complete ecological chaos would have ensued. And the third stage of the plan was the craziest: Bring the actual Australian people over here. Just bring them. Offer them land. Offer them money. Marry them. Kidnap them. Just bring a population of literal Australians to Argentina. It was an insane plan of course, with bogus ideas, which fortunately didn't succeed.


Having told the preceding story to ease up everyone's mood, here's the main problem that I have with mainstream Australian politics, though it's an idea that's not exclusive to Australia. The very idea that Australia is a continent bothers me. The continent in that area, as far as I'm concerned, is Oceania, and Australia is just one more country among others in the continent of Oceania. To say that Oceania is "just a region" and therefore not a continent, is like saying that Europe is "just a region" and therefore not a continent. How can Great Britain be part of Europe, but the Pacific nations not be part of Oceania?

Cheers.

they're called "provinces", not "states", in Argentina) — Arcane Sandwich

We also say "pronvinces" or "comunidad" instead of "states"

Some erudite mates (under Franco's era) did the same decades ago in Spain. Aussie Eucalyptus represents now 28% of Galician flora. Eucalyptus and pines were chosen by the caudillo to dry out swamps. Good choice back in the 1950s, mate!

But now that green and tall Aussie tree is controversial in Spain. You may have heard about our heavy desertification and how Catalunya is literally running out of water. Well, some folks blame the eucalyptus because they dry out the territory surrounding them. These trees now dominate the Iberian flora and don’t allow local plants to develop properly.

I remember that on a YouTube video about Spain's drought, an Australian mate commented: Don't plant eucalyptus bulbs!11!!1!1 But I replied -- Sorry, mate. Too late... Franco already did his best...

Shall we blame Australia because of this? Nah.

Can I blame @Banno? Absolutely. :eyes:

Cheers.

-----

Bienvenido al foro. Qué alegría tener otro hispanohablante. De Argentina cómo Casares y Borges. :up: